S F 

99 



U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY.— Bulletin No. 91. 

A. D. MELVIN, Chief of Bureau. 



FEEDING PRICKLY PEAR TO STOCK 

IN TEXAS. 



BY 



DAVID GRIFFITHS, 



Assistant in Charge of Range and Cactus Investigations^ Farm Managetnent 
Investigations , Bureau of Plant Industry, 




WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
1906. 




Pass ^r r 



Book. 



^^ 



/, 



J^ 



U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

' BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY.— Bulletin No 91. 

A. D. MELVIN, Chief of Bureau. 



94. 



FEEDING PRICKLY PEAR TO STOCK 

IN TEXAS. 



BY 



DAVID GRIFFITHS, 

Assistant in Charge of Raji^^e and Cactus fn-i'csti'^atious, Farm Jfanamifwiit 
Investigations, lUtreaii of Plant Industry . 




WASHINGTON: 
GOVERNMENT I'RINTING OFFICE. 

19(^6. 



^ V: 






LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. 



U. S." Department of xVctKICUlture, 

Bureau of Animal Industry, 
Washington, D. C, July 28, 1906. 
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith and to recommend for 
pubUcatioii as a bulletin of this Bureau a manuscript entitled "Feed- 
ing Prickly Pear to Stock in Texas," by David Griffiths, assistant in 
charge of Range and Cactus Investigations, Farm ^lanagement 
Investigations, Bureau of Plant Industry. The accompanj'ing letter 
from the Chief of the Bureau of Plant Industry explains why, although 
the work was done under the supervision of that Bureau, it seems 
desirable to publish the paper as a bulletin of the Bureau of Animal 
Industry. 

Respectfully, A. D. Melvin, 

Chief of Bureau. 
lion. James Wilson, 

Secretary of Agriculiure. 
2 



^^125 



^' ofD. 



im 



LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. 



U. S. Department of Agriculture, 

Bureau of Plant Industry, 

Washington, D. C, July 5, 1906. 

Sir: I have the pleasure to transmit the manuscript of a paper 
entitled "Feeding Prickly Pear to Stock in Texas," and recommend 
that it be published as a bulletin of the series of your Bureau. The 
investigations reported here are necessarily dual in character and deal 
with a subject partially within the province of mvestigation of both 
bureaus. It is a subject upon which we needed more information 
before proceeding further with investigations into the value of vari- 
ous species of cacti as farm and range crops. Inasmuch as the paper 
deals primarily with the animal side of the subject, I submit it to j^ou 
for publication. 

The paper was prepared by Dr. David Griffiths, assistant in charge 
of Range and Cactus Investigations, and has been submitted by the 
agriculturist in charge of Farm Management Investigations with a 
view to its publication. It is a continuation of Bulletin No. 74 of 
the Bureau of Plant Industry, which gives an account of the practice 
of stockmen in the use of cacti as forage plants, particularly in south- 
west Texas, where most of the cactus is fed. 

The present paper gives an account of some experiments conducted 
by stockmen at the suggestion and under the direction of this Bureau. 
The results of these experiments are of unusual interest. The experi- 
ment with dairy cows was made in such a manner as to compare the 
cactus directly with sorghum hay. The two animals und^. .experi- 
ment were fed at the beginning both cactus and sorghum. >Clieir 
feed was then gradually changed to cactus. Afterwards one of them 
CQWitinued to receive cactus, while the other was changed gradually 
to sorghum hay. After a period of such feeding the feeds were gradu- 
ally interchanged. During the whole of this test both cows were fed 
a mixed grain ration in addition to the roughage. 

Generally speaking, the results indicate that cactus ad libitum 
produces a little l)etter results in milk flow than sorghum hay ad 
libitum, both with sufficient grain, though the differences are small. 



4 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. 

The results indicate that G pounds of fresh cactus are equivalent 
in feeding value to 1 pound of dry sorghum hay. The test with 
beef cattle was undertaken to ascertain the cost of fattening cattle 
on cactus and cotton-seed meal, a common practice in the region 
where the cactus is mostly fed. The carload of steers used in the 
test made only moderate gains, averaging 1 1 pounds daily for each 
head during the fattening period. The very interesting result was 
obtained, however, that this gain was made at a cost of a little less 
than 3 1 cents a pound. 

In both cases the results indicate that stockmen are justified in 
making use of cactus as an efficient and cheap source of nutriment 
for cattle. 

Further studies of cacti, including a large number of chemical 
analyses from a feed-stuff standpoint, are nearly completed, and the 
results will be ready for publication in the near future. 
Respectfully, 

B. T. Galloway, 

Chief of Bureau. 

Dr. A. D. Melvin, 

Chief, Bureau of Animal Industry. 



PREFACE. 



The evident value of prickly pear as a forage, judging by the experi- 
ence of many who have fed this material, the urgent demand for 
information concerning it, and the lack of experimental data from 
which a reasonable estimate of the food value can be made, rendered 
experimental feeding highly desirable. The difficulties in conducting 
such an experiment were manifold. In the first place, it was highly 
desirable that the cattle used should be accustomed to the feed. The 
only section of the country in which such cattle could be found was 
far removed from any experiment station. Trained experimenters 
who were familiar with cactus feeding were wholly wanting. Fortu- 
natel}^, however, a number of persons who had fed cactus for many 
years in southwest Texas appreciated fully the value of the informa- 
tion sought and were willing not only to furnish the cattle and pro- 
vide the feed, but to attend to the details of the feeding and weighing. 

In the experiment with dair}?^ cows conditions were such that it was 
impossible to feed more than two cows experimentally. Yet a careful 
inspection of the results show that the care with which Mr. Sinclair 
carried out the details of the work renders the results of great value 
as an indication of the possible value of prickly pear as a feed for 
dairy cows. It is shown that a ration producing between 1\ and Ih 
pounds of butter a day cost in the neighliorhood of 13 cents when 
pear, rice bran, and cotton-seed meal was fed. 

Although prickly pear is low in nutritive value from the chemical 
standpoint, the steer-feeding experiment also shows that there is 
abundant justification of the practices in vogue of preparing cattle 
for market upon prickly pear and cotton-seed meal. A gain of If 
pounds a day at an expense of Si cents a pound compares very favor- 
ably with feeding residts obtained with standard feeds. 

W. J. Spillman, 
Agriculturist in (liarge of Farm Management Investigations. 



I 



CONTENTS. 



Page 

Introduction 9 

The pear fed • 9 

Prickly pear in the ration of dairy cows 11 

Conditions of the experiment 11 

Method of feeding 12 

Feeding periods 12 

Daily record for Period 1 14 

Daily record for Period IV 14 

Comparison of difl'erent periods 15 

Cost of feed i 16 

Peculiarities noted in feeding 17 

Condition of the animals 17 

Influence of pear on quality of milk 18 

Prickl}' pear in ration of beef cattle 18 

Conditions of the experiment 18 

Method of feeding 19 

Weighing 19 

Shipment and sale of steers 20 

The feeds used 20 

General observations 20 

The nature of chopped pear 22 

7 



LLUSTRATIONS. 



PLATES. 

Pag^e 

1 . Cows used in the milking test 12 

2. Fig. 1. — Some of the beef cattle used in the feeding experiments. Fig. 2. — 

Field of prickly pear on the Sinclair ranch 16 

3. Fig. 1 . — Machinery ready to chop pear. Fig. 2. — Chopped pear ready for feeding . 20 

TEXT FIGURE. 

1. Diagram showing average yield of milk of cows Nos. 12 and 13 during periods I, 

11, III, and IV 15 



FEEDING PRICKLY PEAR TO STOCK IN TEXAS. 



INTRODUCTION. 

Bulletin No. 74 of the Bureau of Plant Industry suggested in a 
brief, popular way some of the more important features of the prob- 
lem of utilizing cacti as feed for live stock. The present paper is a 
continuation of that publication, designed to furnish information 
upon one feature of the problem treated but slightly in the bulletin 
mentioned. 

In the data here presented the aim has been to secure a record of 
the value of pear as commonl}' fed. It has not been the main pur- 
pose to determine the best methods of feeding this forage plant. 
In the experiments outlined the endeavor was made to change cur- 
rent practice no more than was necessary to secure the essential 
data. To determine accurately the value of prickly pear as a dairy 
or fattening ration would require more elaborate experiments. It 
has been the aim to give here simply a record of what the rancher 
realizes from his pear by the ordinary methods of feeding, though 
such other data as the records have revealed have been noted. 

Two experiments are outlined, both conducted inuler the imme- 
(Uate supervision of ranchers in southern Texas in cooperation with 
the Bureau of Plant Industr5^ The first test was undertaken by 
Mr. Alexander Sinclair, of San Antonio, to whom the greatest credit 
is due, not only for the conduct of the work but also for assist- 
ance in planning the experiments and for suggestions in connection 
with the interpretation of results. The actual work was performed 
under his immediate direction by his son, Mr. William Sinclair. The 
second test was conducted by Mr. T. A. Coleman upon his ranch at 
Encimil. The feeding was done under Mr. Coleman's immediate 
supervision, and to his interest and varied experience is due whatever 
success has been attained. 

THE PEAR FED. 

There is such confusion in the scientific disposition of the ])rickly 
pears that it seems almost hazardous to venture an opinion regard- 
ing the proper names of even such common and conspicuous species 
as those or southern Texas. After studying the forms for two years, 

6886— No. 91—06 2 9 



10 FEEDINCJ PRICKLY PEAR TO STOCK IN TEXAS. 

however, the writer believes that he can readily determine all the 
species growing in the region and fed in these experiments. There 
is, however, such variation in the limitation of the species consid- 
ered in these pages that it may be advisable to note more than one 
species in what is here called Opuntia Undheimen Engelm. 

There are usually recognized in this region two species of prickly 
pear, known, respectively, as Opuntia macrorhiza Engelm." and 
Opuntia lindheimeri Engelm. The former is a small, prostrate, usually 
tuberous-rooted species, of no special economic importance. The 
latter has at least two forms more or less distinct, one with yellow 
spines and the other with spines red or brown at the base. The 
yellow-spined form is the typical Opuntia lindheimeri, as originally 
described by Doctor Englemann, and the latter corresponds more 
closely with what was originally named Optuntia engelmannii Salm, 
although it differs considerably from the typical form'^ of that 
species as it occurs in the type locality in northern Chihuahua. Both 
of these forms are at present considered by a majority of botanists 
to be the same species. 

Besides these, there is a form which has also been included under 
Opuntia lindheimeri having spines reddish-brown throughout, with 
joints somewhat smaller and less prolific at least in a state of nature. 
This form is also less thorny on the average than the larger-jointed 
yellow-spiped variety, and forms a large part of what is popularly 
called "blue pear" in southern Texas. However, all blue pear does 
not have brown spines, for the smoother and more glaucous forms of 
the yellow-spined variety are also included under this name. All of 
these forms — those with yellow spines, with brown spines, and with 
yellow spines browTi at the base — have fruits which are normally 
reddish-purple throughout; but there is a yellow-spined form having 
green fruits, tinged with purple outside and greenish-yellow within; 
its seeds also differ very radically from what we consider typical for 
the species, being about twice as large, the difference in size being 
made up very largely in the margin. This form is not to be distin- 
guished in any way from the typical yellow-spined form by an}^ 
habit, spine, or spicule character. Notwithstanding the fact that 
reproductive characters are supposed to be reasonably constant, the 
inclination is to consider this also a variety of Opuntia lindheimeri. 

a It seems better to retain this name until such time as the synonj'my of the group can 
be satisfactorily determined. There is no doubt that the plant in question is the one to 
which the name was originally applied. 

b Type specimens when they become old yield but little information regarding the color 
of the spines, for after being preserved for some time all the spines turn black. This is 
true of the types of Opuntia lindheimeri which have been examined in the herbarium of 
the Missouri Botanical Garden. Accurate conceptions of these features must therefore 
be secured by a study of living plants in the tyjie localities. 



PRICKLY PEAR IN RATION OF DAIRY COWS, 11 

In addition to those mentioned, there is a distinct species which it 
is beheved has not heretofore been recognized by botanists. This is 
common south and east of Cotulla, Tex., and consequently is found 
growing in the Encinal region, where one of the experiments was 
conducted. It is very distinct from the species previously mentioned, 
with which it is always associated. It is different in general appear- 
ance, as well as in its more strictly botanical characters, being the 
tallest, most woody, and most loosely branched of the prickly pears 
of southern Texas. It is characterized by circular joints and by 
single, erect, long, straw-colored, translucent, bonelike spines, which 
occasionally have a tinge of red at the base. It blooms and matures 
its fruit four to six weeks later than the forms of Opuntia lindheimeri, 
the most common of the Texas pears, and its fruit is smaller and 
more nearly globular. This plant is almost universally known among 
the Mexican population of this section as " cacanapa." It will doubt- 
less be described as a new species, in which case it would be advisable 
to use "cacanapa" as the specific name. 

All of these forms included under Opuntia lindheimeri were used in 
these experiments, the yellow-spined or typical one predominating 
in the rations. More of the brown-spined form was fed at Encinal 
than at wSan Antonio, although considerable of it was fed at the latter 
place. At Encinal some cacanapa was fed, but probably not more 
than 1 or 2 per cent of the ration. 

PRICKLY PEAR IN RATION OF DAIRY COWS. 
CONDITIONS OF THE EXPERIMENT. 

The two cows selected for the experiment were secured from Mr. 
Sinclair's herd of about 100 head. As it was desirable to have gentle 
cattle, the selection was made especially with this point in view. 
They were, however, typical specimens of the herd in other respects 
and were known upon the ranch as Nos. 12 and 13. They are both 
Hoi stein- Jersey stock. In No. 12 Holstein characters predominated 
decidedly, while in No. 13 Jersey characteristics were more prominent. 
No. 13 was 6 years old and dropped calf November 27; No. 12 was 7 
years old and dropped calf December 6. They were thoroughly 
accustomed to pear pastures and had been fed singed pear for two 
to four months each winter. (See pi. 1.) 

During the feeding period the cows were kept in separate sheds, 
opening to the east into small ])ens about 10 yards s(iuare. There 
were feeding troughs in the sheds and a constant supply of water was 
kept in the pens. On the whole the sheds were a little more exposed 
than the barn where the general herd was ke])t, but the herd was 
turned out every night except during the coldest weather, while the 
test cows had their choice of shed or pen. 



12 FEEDINO PRICKLY PEAR TO STOCK IN TEXAS. 

To accustom the animals to their new quarters they were removed 
from the herd and put in tliese pens one week before record keeping 
was begun. They were perfectly contented from the start. In order 
to secure uniformity the same person did the milking during the 
entire experiment. 

METHOD OF FEEDING. 

The pear was singed in the field with a gasoline torch (see pi. 2, 
fig. 2), cut and hauled to the barnyard, and unloaded in a pile on the 
barn floor, from which it was fed as desired. A load was sufficient 
for a week or ten days. This method kept the pear at a lower, more 
uniform temperature, no doubt, than that which was fed to the 
remainder of the lierd. The pear in the building during the pro- 
longed cold weather in January did not heat up during the day as 
much as that standing in the field. The difference, however, was 
very slight, except during the coldest weather indicated in the tables, 
when the pear kept indoors was frozen from twenty-four to forty- 
eight hours longer than that in the field. Each feed was weighed 
separately at the time of feeding. 

At feeding time the material was placed in a box and chopped 
with a spade into pieces of a convenient size for the animals to eat, 
usually the equivalent to 2 or 3 inches square. The grain was inva- 
riably fed at milking time, and a ration of roughage consisting of pear 
or sorghum hay, or both, was fed three times each day. Pear was 
always fed after milking morning and evening, and about midday. 
It was the purpose during the entire period to feed all the pear the 
cows would eat, with a definite ration of grain and hay, or of grain 
alone. There was consequently some pear left in the boxes each 
morning. This was always cleaned out and deducted from the pre- 
vious day's ration. It is usual when feeding for beef to sprinkle the 
meal over the chopped pear, but this could not be done here, for it 
was the purpose to get as much information as possible regarding 
the quantity of pear which the animals would consume with a definite 
grain and hay ration, or without the latter. The meal could not, 
therefore, be fed with the pear on account of the waste which would 
occur and the indefinite character of the results so far as the quantity 
of grain fed was concerned. 

FEEDING PERIODS. 

The first period covered twenty days, beginning January 25 and 
ending February 13. During this period the cows were fed, as they 
had been during the forty-seven days immediately preceding the 
experiment, rations consisting of rice bran, cotton-seed meal, a snuill 
feed of sorghum hay, and all the prickl}- pear they would cat. During 
the next four days the sorghum hay was gradually reduced so that by 



BUL. No. 91, B. A. I. 



Plate 1. 




Fig. 2.— Cow No. 13. 

Cows Used in the Milking Test. 

l'li<it<>Krii])lR'(l Kc'ljniiiry 22, VM't. 



FEEDING PEKIODS. 13 

February 18, when the second period began, cactus formed the only 
roughage fed. Period II extended over eighteen days. During the 
twelve days immediately following Period II the roughage fed cow 
No. 12 was gradually changed from cactus to sorghum hay, so that 
during the third period of the experiment, which lasted fourteen days, 
the roughage fed cow No. 12 consisted entirely of sorghum hay, while 
that fed cow No. 13 consisted entirely of cactus. During the seven 
days between Periods III and IV the roughage of each cow was com- 
pletely changed, in the case of one from sorghum hay to cactus, and 
in the other from cactus to sorghum hay. Period IV lasted fifteen 
days. 

It will be noted that these cows at the close of the first period of 
this experiment had been fed without change of ration for sixty-seven 
days. During the experiment the roughage fed each cow was changed 
first to cactus alone, and then to sorghum hay alone. In the case of 
cow No. 12 the roughage was changed back to cactus alone during 
the last period. It is notable that the normal milk flow was hardly 
interrupted during the whole experiment and that the yield of milk 
was satisfactory throughout, except for a slight decrease just at the 
close of Period I, evidently due to unusually cold weather. 

In the following tabular statements it has been thought wise, since 
the data are available, to include the daily record for Periods I and 
IV, inasmuch as this is, we believe, the first published account of 
pear-feeding data. Ordinarily one period would be sufficient for this, 
but two are included on account of the excessively low temperatures 
of late January and early February, introducing variations which 
would not ordinarily occur. Since the excessively low temperatures 
influenced results so materially, the United States Weather Bureau 
observations at San Antonio are incorporated up to February 13, 
1905, for convenient reference in interpreting the decrease in milk 
flow during the first two or three weeks of the experiment. 



14 



FEEDING PRICKLY PEAR TO STOCK IN TEXAS. 



Daily Recokd for Perjod I. 



During this period the cows were upon the same feed they had been accustomed to at this 
time of the year. They had been fed this ration since Dccemlier 9. Besides the feed tabu- 
lated below, cow No. 12 got 12 pounds of rice bran and 3 pounds of cotton-seed meal, with 
the exception of the last two days of the period, wheii she would eat only 11 pounds of rice 
bran. Cow No. 13 was started in at 12 pounds of rice bran and 3 pounds of cotton-seed 
meal, but the rice bran was decreased to 10 pounds on January 28 and to 8 pounds on Fel)- 
ruary 6, because 8 pounds of rice bran was all that she would clean up. It was the purpose 
to feed all the sorghum Hay and pear that (he cows would eat during this period. 



' 




Butter fat in milli. j Amount of roughage fed. 


Atmos- 
pheric 
tempera- 
ture. 


Yield of milk. 
Date. 


Per cent. Amount. 


Prickly pear. Sorghum. 


Cow 
No. 12. 


Cow 
No. 13. 


Cow 

No. 
12. 


Cow 
No. 
13. 


Cow 
No. 12. 


Cow 
No. 13. 


Cow 
No. 12. 


Cow Cow 
No. 13. No. 12. 


Cow 
No. 13. 


Maxi- Mini- 
mum, mum. 

1 


1 
1905. ! Lbs. 

January 25 ' 38.0 

January 26 37.0 

January 27 , 37.5 

January 28 | 40.0 

January 29 43.0 

January 30 j 40.6 

January 31 39.9 

February 1 41.2 

February 2 38.5 

February 3 38.6 

February 4 36.4 

Februarys 34.6 

February 6 35.9 

February 7 36.5 

February 8 38.5 

February 9 38.8 

February 10 35.7 

February 11 37.0 

February 12 33.8 

February 13 'a 31. 9 


Lbs. 
33.0 
30.0 
31.5 
32.5 
32.5 
33.0 1 
31.8 
33.3 
28.9 
29.1 
27.3 
25.9 
25.3 
26.8 
29.5 
29.8 
30.3 
31.0 
27.5 
a 24.0 • 


• 3.8 
3. 6 
3.6 

• 3.8 

■ 3.9 

■ 4.2 


1.0 
4.0 
4.0 

4.2 

4.2 
4.3 


Lbs. 

4.28 



8.75 

5.53 

5.83 
4.3 


Lbs. 

3.78 

3.88 

1 
3.76 

4.52 

4.88 

.3. 54 j 

i 


Lbs. 
{ 60 
86 
101 
; 116 
125 
125 
1.35 
1.38 
142 
139 
81 
103 
117 
113 
118 
98 
89 
100 
89 
90 


Lbs. 
62 
90 
101 
116 
125 
125 
130 
137 
139 
149 
88 
105 
138 
139 
133 
124 
109 
114 
96 
92 


Lbs. 
12 
10 
10 
8 

I 

8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
6 12 


Lbs. 
15 
10 
10 

i 

5 
5 
4 
5 
5 
5 
5 

I 

2 
3 
3 
4 
5 
6 12 


°F. 
44 
41 
45 
68 
60 
52 
45 
58 
34 
33 
27 
41 
32 
34 
60 
61 
51 
56 
53 
35 


'F. 
31 
25 
38 
43 
44 
36 
49 
34 
29 
27 
21 
25 
23 
29 
32 
37 
37 
44 
17 
13 



a The rapid decrease in milk flow toward the close of this period is doubtless due to the unusually 
low temperatures. 
6 Extra sorghum hay fed on account of frozen pear. 

Daily Record for Period IV. 

Period IV covered 15 days, with cow No. 12 receiving all the pear and cow No. 13 all the 
sorghum hay they would eat. Cow No. 12 received 12 pounds rice bran and 3 pounds cot- 
ton-seed meal and cow No. 13, 8 pounds rice bran and 3 pounds cotton-seed meai. 



Yield of milk. 



Date. 



April 
April 
April 
April 
April 
April 
April 
April 
April 
April 
April 
April 
April 
April 
April 



1905. 



Cow Cow 
No. 12. No. 13. 



Lbs. 
33.6 
35.7 
.36.8 
36.2 
36.0 
32.6 
32.4 
30.3 
31.1 
31.6 
33.9 
32.2 
34.4 
33 1 
33.5 



Lbs. 
27.7 
24.4 
28.6 
28.4 
27.8 
27.5 
28.4 
27.0 
27.4 
27.5 
29.4 
27.3 
28.4 
26.6 
28.3 



Average . 



Butter fat in milk. 



Per cent. 



Cow Cow 
No. 12. No. 13. 



3.8 
3.4 
3.2 
3.6 

3.6 

4.0 

3.6 
3.4 



3.8 

3.9 
3.2 
3.6 
3.8 



3.8 

3.8 
4.0 

3.7 



Amount. 



Amount of roughage fed. 



Prickly pear. 



Sorghum. 



Cow Cow 
No. 12. No. 13. 



Lbs. 

2.49 

1.39 
1.23 
1.15 
1.17 
1.16 
1.09 
1.11 
1.26 
1..35 
1.15 
1.16 
1.25 
1.27 



Cow Cow I Cow Cow 
No. 12 No. 13. ' No. 12. No. 13. 



Lbs. 

1.98 

1.11 
.90 
1.00 
1.04 

1.13 i 
I 2.03 I 



Lbs. 
141 
149 
1.50 
160 
165 
119 
"CO 
120 
116 
143 
158 
154 
160 
174 
172 



Lbs. i Lbs. 



149 



Lbs. 



o Young joints not eaten not counted in average. 



FEEDING PERIODS. 



15 



COMPARISOX OF DIFFERENT PERIODS. 

The following table shows the milk and butter yield of the different 
periods: 





Cow No. 12. 


Cow No. 1.3. 


Period. 


Feed. 


Average 
daily 

yield of 
milk. 


Average 

daily 
yield of 
butter.o 


! Average 

Feed ^^^''^ 
**^'^"- , yield of 
milk. 


Average 

daily 
yield of 
butter.o 


I 
II 


Pear and sorghum 


Pounds. 

.37. f) 
.35.7 
33.7 
33.5 


Pounds. 

1.68 
1.46 
1.46 
1.43 


■ 

Pounds. 

Pear and sorghum 29. 6 

Pear 29.1 

Pear 29.4 

Sorghum 27. 6 


Pounds. 
1.43 
1.36 


III 
IV 


Sorghum 

Pear 


1.32 
1.24 



oin computing Initter yield, 0.S5 pound of butter fat is considered equal to I pound of butter. 

If we compare an average of Periods II and IV with period III for 
cow No. 12 we have an average daily yield of 34.6 pounds of milk 
and 1.445 pounds of- butter on pear, and an average of 33.7 pounds 
of milk and 1.46 pounds of butter on sorghum. In the case of cow 



40 
39 
SB 
37 
36 
35 


PERIOD I— 20 DAYS. 

BOTH COWS N°.s 12 AND 13 
rZD PRICKLY PEAR AND SOR- 
GHUM HAM 


PERIOD 11- 18 DAYS. 

BOTH COWS NOS 12 AND 
13 FED PRICKLY PEAR. 


PERIOD m- 14 DAYS. 

cow Np 12 FED SOR- 
GHUM HAY AND COW 
N9 13 PRICKLY PEAR. 


PERIOD IV-15DAYS. 

COW N? 12 FED 
PRiCKLY PEAH ANO N" 
3 SORGHUM HAY. 




















































































1 






























































































































































P 


E. 


6,f 


? 


VN 





SOI 


;g 




JK 


1 










































































































4 


4^ 


c 


*i 


' 


0. 


f> 


,^ 


























































































































- 


- 


.. 














PE 


_A 


R 














































































































■" 


1 


>• 






























































34 






































































" 




»« 




* 


, 


,^ s 


)R6 


^^ 


JN 


1 


















PE 


AR 






























































































- 


- 




- 


- 


- 


— 






- 






• 


































































































































31 






























































































































f 


»c 


A 


R 


Al 


m 


5SC 


)a 


G 


H 


J^ 


A 


















































PE 


:ar 




































29 


















i 


h 


= 


'i 


" 


^ 


7Z 


- 






. 




_ 






, 






P 


E> 




I 










^ 








, 


_ 




■4k 


^ 


























































































r 










r 
























* 


"" 


- 


-. 






- 




S( 


5RG 


Hu^ 


(1 
















































































































"• 




































































































































ill 




. 


_ 


J 


_ 




J 






_ 




_ 




_ 




J 


u 










. 
























































L 

















Fig. 1. -Diagram showing average yield of milk of Cows Nos. 12 and 13 during Periods I, II, III, 
and IV. The character of the roughage is indicated for each animal in each period. The- scale 
showing the yield of milk in pounds per dav is placed at the left. The small circles indicate the 
average yields for the periods. It will be noticed that the decline in yield, which is to bo expected 
as lactation advances, is not quite so rapid on pear as it is on sorghum hay. 

No. 13 the periods can not be so satisfactorily grouped to eliminate 
the effect of advancing lactation. The best comparison that can ])e 
made is between an average of Periods I and IV and 11 and III, when 
the record shows the following: 

Average for Periods I and IV (sorghum mostly), 28.6 pounds of 
milk and 1.335 pounds of butter. 

Average for Periods II and Til (pear), 29.25 jiounds of milk and 
1.340 pounds of l)utter. 

The relative milk flow can be appreciated mon* readily in the 
accompanying diagram (fig. 1). 



16 FEEDING PRICKLY PEAR TO STOCK IN TEXAS. 

The tables and the diagram show: 

(1) Cow No. 12 shows a gradual decrease from a pear and sorghum 
ration in Period I to a pear ration in Period II, but not quite so rapid 
a decline as took place during Period III, when sorghum was fed. In 
Period IV, while a decrease is shown, it is less marked than in the 
preceding sorghum period. 

(2) Cow No. 13 shows a slight decline in Period II and an almost 
complete recovery in Period III, but a sharp decline when sorghum is 
fed in Period IV. 

(3) A full roughage ration of pear with a constant grain ration 
appears to yield fully as good results as a full roughage ration of sor- 
ghum hay. The records are really a little more favorable to the pear 
ration. 

COST OF FEED. 

It is impossible with our present imperfect knowledge regarding 
the rate of growth and habits of prickly pear under cropping condi- 
tions to make an estimate which is at all reliable regarding the cost 
of this item of the ration. In the computations, therefore, it is 
deemed best to omit the item of cost of producing the crop of pear. 
The estimates do not, therefore, contain any account of the use of the 
land upon which the pear is grown. At all events, this would be in 
accord with the general sentiment that pear costs nothing. This, of 
course, is not strictly true, although the rancher has as yet paid but 
little attention to prickly pear culture. He gathers it from his native 
pastures as he does his firewood. Upon this farm, however, a con- 
siderable effort has been made to propagate the plant, though the 
cost of the effort could not be estimated. The cost of the other items 
of the ration was as follows, the prices quoted being those actually 
paid upon the ranch during the time the feeding was in progress: 

Per ton. 

Cotton-seed meal $22 

Rice bran ' 13 

Sorghum hay 7 

One man can easily burn pear for 100 cows, and in addition he 
can assist in milking. He will use about 10 gallons of gasoline each 
day. During the past winter this cost 12 cents a gallon. The cost 
of a day's rations for each cow while pear without hay was being fed 
was as follows: 

Cents. 

12 pounds of rice bran 7. 8 

3 pounds of cotton-seed meal 3. 3 

Labor 75 

Gasoline 1.2 

Total 13. 05 



BuL. No. 91 B. A. 1. 



Plate 2. 




Fig. 1.— Some of the Beef Cattle Used in the Feeding Experiments. 




Fig. 2.— Field of Prickly Pear on the Sinclair Ranch. 



PECULIARITIES NOTED IN FEEDING. 17 

This estimate is a trifle high, as it includes the cost of labor in 
excess of the time actually occupied in feec^ng. Thirteen cents a 
day will, therefore, represent very closely the entire cost of a ration 
as outlined above. When sorghum hay was fed in addition to the 
pear the cost of the feed was a little higher, but as hay was increased 
the cost of labor and gasoline decreased. It must be remembered, 
also, that the above estimate of 13 cents represents the maximum 
cost of the ration of the test cattle, and that the computation of the 
cost of feeding pear is based upon actual experience on the ranch 
during the past several years. 

PECULIARITIES NOTED IX FEEDING. 

On April 15 and 16, when cow No. 12 alone was on a full roughage 
ration of pear, it was observed that she left more than usual in the 
trough, although she seemed to relish the feed. This was at the 
time when young joints were first fed in any quantity, and it was soon 
discovered that it was pieces of these and not of the older joints 
that were left. After this the young joints were thrown out and no 
more of them fed during the remainder of the experiment. In the 
field cattle eat these young shoots readily in the spring, while they 
may not molest the older ones, but the reason is probably due to 
the condition of the spines alone. They would probably eat the 
older joints even more readily than the younger ones were they not 
so formidably protected. 

The leathery texture of the young joints appears to be responsil)lc 
for the fact that the cow refused to eat them when more palatable 
material was fed. All who have worked with prickly pear, espe- 
cially botanists who have attempted to prepare specimens, have 
noticed that the young joints are very tough and leather}-. Indeed, 
it is with considerable difficulty that one is able to split a young 
joint lengthwise with a knife, while the older ones are very easily cut. 

It was a constant suqmse to observe the fondness of the cattle 
for the singed pear. During the latter part of the first period the 
temperature was unusually low for southern Texas. The I'nited 
States Weather Bureau records show a maximum of only 35° and a 
minimum of 13° F'. on February 13. It will be seen that a little 
extra sorghum hay was fed on this day. Regardless of the fact that 
the pear was frozen solid all day the cows ate 9i) and 92 pounds, 
respectively. This was the coldest day of the winter, l)ut not the 
only day when the cows ate frozen pear with apparent relish. 

CONDITION 07 THE .VNIM \LS. 

The distance of the ranch from any convenient means of weigliing 
prevented the securing of data on the important point of the weight 



18 FEEDING PRICKLY I'EAK TO STOCK IN TEXAS. 

of the COWS, but careful observations were made by several individ- 
uals, both those haviii^ immediate charge of the animals and those 
who saw them only occasionally. All agreed that the condition of 
both cows continued to improve up to the end of the experiment. 

Of course, the well-known laxative effect of prickly pear was evi- 
dent during the entire time that it was fed, being less noticeable 
while sorghum was a part of the ration; but at no time was it 
thought that the cows scoured to any injurious extent, even during 
the period when pear was the only roughage fed them. The fact 
that they apparently gained in flesh, milked well, and began shed- 
ding earlier than the general herd appears to be sufficient proof that 
they were in good physical condition during the entire period. 

INFLUENCE OF PEAR ON QUALITY OF ^flLK. 

The statement has frequently been made that the quality of milk 
is injuriously affected when pear is fed to dairy cows, and it seemed 
important to secure data on this point in connection with this exper- 
iment. Mr. Sinclair has fed pear to his herd for two to four months 
each year for six or eight years, and no complaint has ever been 
received from customers which could in any wa}^ be attributed to 
pear feeding. 

During the time when one of the cows was on a full rougliage 
ration of pear — that is, on rice bran, cotton-seed meal, and pear with 
no sorghum ha}^ — five persons tested the milk to determine whether 
any odor or flavor was imparted by such a ration. Morning's milk 
was examined in the evening witii the result that four persons could 
not detect any change, deleterious or otherwise, while one was in 
doubt. 

PRICKLY PEAR IN RATION OF BEEF CATTLE. 

CONDITIONS OF THE EXPERIMENT. 

As stated previously, an efi"ort was made to keep the steers fed 
in the beef experiment under conditions as nearly similar to those 
prevailing in the general pear-feeding region as possible. The steers 
selected were from the general Coleman herd, a miscellaneous lot, a 
majority of which were bred near Cactus, Tex. They were consid- 
erably above the average of the cattle in the neighborhood, or even 
on Mr. Coleman's ranch. (See pi. 2, fig. \.) 

The intention was to feed one carload (20 head) of steers, l)ut 
when the animals were gathered 27 head were weighed and put in 
the pen. The additional 7 head were not removed until the close 
of the experiment, but onh' the original carload of 20 head was shijiped 
at the close of the feeding, the others being shipped with a miscella- 
neous lot of cattle to another market. 



PRICKLY PEAR IN RATION OF BEEF CATTLE. 19 

The feeding- lot was an ordinary open mesquite 'Hrap," containing 
approximately 4 acres of ground, and inclosed by a wire fence. No 
shelter of any kind was furnished the cattle. The scrub mesquite 
brush in and surrounding the feed lot offered very little protection. 
This might not be a serious consideration in an average southern 
Texas winter, but during the past winter protection would have 
enhanced very considerably the gains made. 

METHOD OF FEEDING. 

The method of feeding in this case was exactly that employed 
throughout the pear region of Texas wherever the pear chopper is 
used. The largest and most woody plants available were used, from 
localities where the growth was most vigorous and healthy. They 
were chopped with one of the common pear choppers, but without 
singeing. 

In this experiment the feed was gathered from the field twice each 
day— at about 7 o'clock in the morning and 3 o'clock in the after- 
noon — cut, and fed immediately. The chop was shoveled into the 
ordinary feeding troughs, and the cotton-seed meal was sprinkled 
upon it in such quantity as would give the desired number of pounds 
for each animal. 

With this method of feeding it was not feasible to furnish more 
pear than the animals would eat, because of the necessary waste of 
meal, but a constant effort was made to give them all they would 
clean up. 

WEIGHING. 

Although the steers used were probably more gentle than the aver- 
age stockers of southern Texas it was found impracticable to secure 
weekly weighings, as was the intention in the beginning. The two 
weighings that were made, it is believed, cost the gains of an entire 
week. All the animals became considerably excited, and once or 
twice threatened to stampede. 

On account of the apparently good gains being made by this lot 
of steers Mr. Coleman decided to put another herd of 100 head on 
feed in an adjoining pen. At first these also did very nicely, but 
they soon became wild, with no apparent cause, and it was decided 
to turn them out into pasture again. 

The experimental lot did not get nearly as wild as the others, 
even with the weighing, but there is no doubt that the final gains 
were very materially reduced by the excitement caused durmg the 
weighing. It should be stated that the greatest care was exercised 
by Mr. Goleman in the handling of these steers during the entire 
period. Aside from the necessary handling and weighing they were 
subjected to no circumstances to excite them. 



GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 21 

or, in actual outlay of cash for feed at the prevailing price for meal 
of $23.75 per ton, 1 pound of gain cost 2.97 cents' worth of cotton- 
seed meal, which is not at all excessive for the cost of grain to feed 
with pear. 

The cost of labor can not be accurately determined for this experi- 
ment because of the small number of animals which were fed, but 
the data furnished here, together with the experience of Mr. Goleman 
and others in feeding pear during the past ten years, enables one to 
make a very close estimate of the necessary expenses. The actual 
conditions were that one num did all of the feeding during the entire 
period, and was assisted in the chopping by three other men — an 
engmeer and two laborers. He in return assisted them in chopping 
two loads for each one that he used, and their loads represented 
about 50 per cent more pear than his. All pear was hauled an 
average distance of 1 mile, and each load was weighed on the way 
from the field to the chopper, necessitating a little extra travel. 
While all that was required of the man in charge of the feeding was 
the care of these animals, his time was not entirely occupied. 
Indeed, it is believed he would have had little difficulty in feeding 
100 head under these conditions. In actual practice nuich less labor 
would be recpiired, both on account of greater convenience in feeding 
and greater economy of time. 

In Bulletin No. 74 of the Bureau of Plant Industry estimates are 
made which indicate that eight men can feed a maintenance ration to 
1,200 head of cattle. Reducing this number to the extent necessary 
to compensate for the additional care required in the feeding of a 
fattening ration, it is estimated that eight men could without doubt 
feed 1,000 head of cattle. Assuming the figures of cost in the publi- 
cation mentioned to be correct, the total expense of labor, gasoline, 
and interest on machinery would be in the neighborhood of 00 cents 
for each animal for a ])eriod of one hundred days. 

The value of the pear is not included in this estimate, and, as in 
the previous experiment, it was not possil)le to determine its cost. 
Should one ask a rancher in southern Texas to estimate upon this 
point, his answer would invariably be, "Nothing." In fact, it is 
questionable whether the pa.stures are not actually imjiroved by 
cutting oir the older, larger plants. As in all fattening experiments, 
the increase in weight alone does not represent the entire gain: the 
improvement and enhanced valuation of the whole carcass nuist be 
taken into consideration, but all of the estinuites are based upon 
value of the increased weight alone. 

The relation of gain to feed consumed may be summed up as 
follows: 

1. Average daily ration of pear for each head of stock, 96.31 
pounds. 



22 FEEDING PRICKLY PEAR TO STOCK IN TEXAS. 

2. Averajio daily ^jain for each head, 1.75 pounds. 

3. Amount of pear fed for 1 pound of gain, 55.03 pounds. 

4. Amount of cotton-seed meal required for 1 pound of gain, 2^ 
pounds. 

5. Cost of cotton-seed meal for 1 pound of gain, 2.97 cents. 

6. Cost of pear per 1 pound of gain 0.514 cent. 

7. Cost of feed per 1 pound of gain, 3.48 cents. 

THE NATURE OF CHOPPED PEAR. 

Since many erroneous statements have appeared regarding the 
nature of pear chop, and since the publications of the Department on 
the su])ject have been misinterpreted, this seems to be a fitting place 
to put in a few words of explanation regarding the work of the pear 
chopper and the character of the feed produced. 

A description of the pear choppers is given in a previous bulletin" 
and need not be repeated here. (See also pi. 3, fig. 1.) The con- 
struction of the machine indicates that the pear may be reduced to 
ver}" fine consistency. But pieces 6 inches sciuare may be found in 
the chop when ready to feed. Plate 3, figure 2, shows this condition 
fairly well. The material is there represented in the rear end of a 
wagon as it was thrown out of the machine by the centrifugal force 
of the revolving wheel (pi. 3, fig. 1). Large pieces are shown; but no 
special injury to the cattle was observed from feeding them. It is 
evident that all pear joints fed to the machine at right angles to the 
knives, as described in the publication referred to above, will be cut 
into pieces i to H inches in length, depending upon the setting of 
the shear plate ; but whatever material happens to be fed in such a way 
as to reach the machine in the plane of the knives will pass through 
in large flat pieces. Often a piece of joint 4 to 6 inches square, or 
even a whole joint, will pass through the machine with practically 
an uninjured epidermis. The material never is macerated or reduced 
to a pulp. In spite of this, however, little or no evil effect results 
from the spines, even in the case of joints which pass through the 
machine uncut. The dead and exceedingly brittle spines have 
invariably received enough rough treatment in passing through the 
machine to reduce very perceptibly the injury which they can do. 
There is no denying the fact that stock which are fed pear chopped 
in this way are somewhat annoyed by the spines. There is always 
more or less slobbering as the result of the spines sticking into the 
membranes of the mouth, but the effect does not appear to be a 
serious one. 

It has been frequently stated that the spines are softened by the 
juices of the plant in the chopped material to such an extent as to 

« Bulletin No. 74, Bureau of Plant Industry, p. 17, Pis. II and III. 



THE NATURE OF CHOPPED PEAK. 23 

render them innocuous — an idea which is entirely erroneous. It is 
always the practice to feed immediately after choppini^;. Indeed, it is 
doubtful whether the spines would become very materially softened 
before the chop would ferment to such an extent as to render it unfit 
to feed. The effect upon the spines is entirely one of abrasicm; 
they are broken to such an extent that the injury they cause is very 
much reduced. Cattle can handle pretty rough feed, and they eat 
much of the Texas pear as it stands in the pastures. It is believed 
that if the spines lay tightly against the surface of the joint, instead 
of approximately at right angles to it, the cattle could graze the pear 
with but little difficulty. It should be emphasized that in pear 
chopping the spines are not softened by the juices and the material 
is not macerated, but that the chances of the spines doing injury 
are reduced to a minimum by the rough treatment which th(\y receive 
from the machine. It is also evident to anyone watching the opera- 
tion of a pear machine that many of the spines are winnowed out and 
removed from the product during the process of chopping. 



O 



J 



fiWr'QS 



